Interesting conversation with a bar owner yesterday

[Brian D.]

A new establishment near my house has made their outdoor space cigar friendly, and just about year round useable.

Yesterday the owner and I ran into each other elsewhere, and since he knows I'm a "gun guy", the topics of discussion went there. First, he asked if I could take a look at his daughter's handgun, it wasn't working properly. Told him sure, and in the meantime there were YouTube videos for just about every firearm available in the U.S.

Next, he told me that he felt compelled to put up "No guns" signs, but that they were with regards to a couple other customers, and specifically NOT applicable to me. He knows the law, and knows that I consume alcohol while there, but told me he would prefer that I carry anyway.

I thanked him for having such a level of confidence in me, but reiterated that in Ohio, carrying while/after drinking is a felony level no-no.

Indiana and Pennsylvania (among other states) don't have that zero tolerance threshold in their statutes, but Ohio certainly does. And after talking to a judge and two prosecutors in this county over the years, it's clear to me that our legal system doesn't give much wiggle room in such cases. Unless you're a cop, or a predicate dirtbag felon with the properly connected criminal defense attorney. Or a politically connected muckety muck. I'm none of the above, although the defense attorney pal I've never needed (hooray) seems chummy with a few judges.

Can't see us ever getting the laws changed in that direction, either.

"THERE WILL BE BLOOD RUNNING ON THE FLOORS OF EVERY BAR IN OHIO!!", the gun grabbers would scream inside the Statehouse.

[eugene]

So what would happen if you still carried and were in the bar not drinking and had to defend yourself? Could the presence of the no guns signs be used against you in any way? I think I'd still go elsewhere letting him know I'm not comfortable with signs being up since they tend to send the wrong message.

[Bearable]

What sign? If it is the Ohio sign for government buildings it would have no effect on a non-government building. I already pointed out RC 2923.15 is unconstitutional.

I understand Brian does not want to be a pinky, but downing a cold one is no different than taking a shot of Dayquil.

[Brian D.]

So what would happen if you still carried and were in the bar not drinking and had to defend yourself? Could the presence of the no guns signs be used against you in any way? I think I'd still go elsewhere letting him know I'm not comfortable with signs being up since they tend to send the wrong message.

Don't know, the place is close to home so I intend to have an adult beverage each and every visit. Gun gets locked up beforehand. It's too bad Ohio's law is so nannified. Somehow Pennsylvania and Indiana (among other states) lawmakers are more trusting of firearms owners/carriers than Ohio seems fit to be.

[Brian D.]

What sign? If it is the Ohio sign for government buildings it would have no effect on a non-government building.

He hasn't put the signs up yet. I'm guessing it will be some depiction of the gun in a red circle, diagonal red slash across the circle. 'No guns allowed' verbiage beneath circle. Something like that.

[JustaShooter]

What sign? If it is the Ohio sign for government buildings it would have no effect on a non-government building. I already pointed out RC 2923.15 is unconstitutional.

Tell that to the judge, he'll laugh at you while pronouncing sentence. The model sign currently posted by the AG is appropriate for both government and non-government buildings. And I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't have any more luck with the old sign that mentions 2923.1212, but at least there you *might* have something.

And your treatise on the unconstitutionality of ORC 2923.15 isn't worth the paper it's printed on when Brian is standing before the judge facing a charge under that statute since it hasn't yet been tested in court. (Speaking of standing, as I said before there are ways you can achieve standing if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Here's one: Get yourself arrested for a violation of 2923.15, then get that statute overturned.)

[Bearable]

What sign? If it is the Ohio sign for government buildings it would have no effect on a non-government building. I already pointed out RC 2923.15 is unconstitutional.

Tell that to the judge, he'll laugh at you while pronouncing sentence. The model sign currently posted by the AG is appropriate for both government and non-government buildings. And I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't have any more luck with the old sign that mentions 2923.1212, but at least there you *might* have something.

And your treatise on the unconstitutionality of ORC 2923.15 isn't worth the paper it's printed on when Brian is standing before the judge facing a charge under that statute since it hasn't yet been tested in court. (Speaking of standing, as I said before there are ways you can achieve standing if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Here's one: Get yourself arrested for a violation of 2923.15, then get that statute overturned.)

Really, you are going to challenge me over posted "No Guns" signs? So, how much do you want to bet? Bet someone that has forgot more about "No Guns" signs than you will ever know. Someone who was prosecuted over a "No Guns" sign supposedly posted on a private business and who was acquitted. Really? I think you may want to rethink your offer to bet.

And no, The sign mentioned in RC 2923.1212 is not authorized to be used by private businesses. I suggest you read RC 2923.126(C)(3)(a) very closely. By the way, don't jump to conclusions reading the AG's published Handbook about signage. It's correct, but easily misunderstood and misleading if you have NOT read closely and understand the actual law.

Now as to RC 2923.15. As to Brian, apparently you don't know what a pinky is.
You have no issues with my treatise regarding RC 2923.12 and 2923.16, but then you proclaim my "treatise on the unconstitutionality of ORC 2923.15 isn't worth the paper it's printed on..." I'm not a drinking man, but if I was.....And that leads us to your last statement. You suggest getting arrested and charged with a crime to challenge the law. How insightful to suggest a fool's choice.

Having won many battles in court (99%) being the plaintiff or defendant, and a winning record as a ghost writer for many Pro se plaintiffs or defendants, it is so much easier to give written notice to those proper parties so that criminal altercations don't present themselves.

And no, I'm not practicing law without a license. There is that stinking little thing called the First Amendment.

[Brian D.]

Now as to RC 2923.15. As to Brian, apparently you don't know what a pinky is.

Yeah, you lost me and perhaps everyone else in this forum with that "pinky" reference.

[Bearable]

Now as to RC 2923.15. As to Brian, apparently you don't know what a pinky is.

Yeah, you lost me and perhaps everyone else in this forum with that "pinky" reference.

A pinky is a new born mouse. It is pink because it has no hair. Pinkies are fed to corn snakes, yum yum.
Hence, a pinky is an uneducated Pro Se sent to court in which he/she gets devoured by the court.
The pinky has no idea of all the dirty tricks the court will use to twist the pinky into a knot, convincing him/her that he/she is guilty.

[BB62]

What sign? If it is the Ohio sign for government buildings it would have no effect on a non-government building. I already pointed out RC 2923.15 is unconstitutional.

... And your treatise on the unconstitutionality of ORC 2923.15 isn't worth the paper it's printed on when Brian is standing before the judge facing a charge under that statute since it hasn't yet been tested in court. (Speaking of standing, as I said before there are ways you can achieve standing if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Here's one: Get yourself arrested for a violation of 2923.15, then get that statute overturned.) ...

I agree with you, JAS. Theory is one thing - reality is another.

Bearable, I have no idea who (or what) you are, but I've been reading your stuff long enough to come to this conclusion: you appear capable as far as putting together treatises on various legal subjects - but motionless on actually DOING SOMETHING in real-life to bring what I can only describe as your "theories" to life.

I suspect the off-putting manner you displayed later in the thread would probably mean it would be a solo effort, but many, including me, would welcome wins against the stacked deck that includes the courts, dirty/ignorant politicians, and lying anti-gunners.

[Bearable]

Well, it has been more than two days for JustaShooter or BB62 to bring forward any Founding era restrictions on the possession of firearms while being intoxicated either in public or in private.

The Bruen Court, at page 2131, stated:
“[W]hen a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

With a little time expended, both of you would have found that the earliest laws regulating public intoxication while in possession of a pistol was well after the Civil War, around 1871. The Ohio Supreme Court admitted it could not point to any historical precursors supporting Ohio’s modern-day regulation (R.C. § 2923.15) dealing with possessing a firearm while intoxicated because there is nothing analogous that can pass constitutional muster in support of their decision.

Of course, laziness breeds contempt. Both of you found is easier to throw rocks and bottles than do a little research.

From my little research I have found nothing to which JustaShooter was the lead defier of authority, putting his butt on the line for the cause.

And I’m sure BB62 “would welcome wins against the stacked deck that includes the courts, dirty/ignorant politicians, and lying anti-gunners” especially after the St. Louis Zoo whipping he took. You would think he learned his lesson in doing a little research before following a tenderfoot into the belly of the beast.

The best part is BB62 saying he doesn’t know who I am.

The fact is neither of you has brought anything to the table in rebuttal. The fact is there is nothing to bring to the table.

[JustaShooter]

The fact is, neither of us are inclined to rebut your position on the constitutionality of these laws as we don't disagree with it. And, as far as me putting myself on the line, I'm not the one proclaiming I have the answer, but gee, not actually willing to *do* anything with it. I also know others here can vouch that I actually have helped make progress in restoring our rights in Ohio.

As far as BB62 not knowing who you are, I kind of laughed when I read that as I'm as sure as I can be that I *do* know who you are, and I also know you were banned from this forum for cause, and if you keep up like you are, you'll be banned again. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised you weren't immediately banned once it became clear who you are.

[Bearable]

The fact is, neither of us are inclined to rebut your position on the constitutionality of these laws as we don't disagree with it. And, as far as me putting myself on the line, I'm not the one proclaiming I have the answer, but gee, not actually willing to *do* anything with it. I also know others here can vouch that I actually have helped make progress in restoring our rights in Ohio.

As far as BB62 not knowing who you are, I kind of laughed when I read that as I'm as sure as I can be that I *do* know who you are, and I also know you were banned from this forum for cause, and if you keep up like you are, you'll be banned again. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised you weren't immediately banned once it became clear who you are.

Going from “isn't worth the paper it's printed on” to “we (meaning you) don't disagree with it.” Wow!

I’m like any person, you ask me a question and I will give you an answer, that is a proclamation. But what does that have to do with taking any action? It doesn’t. You made a non sequitur statement. And you have no clue as to what I have accomplished in my life; more than you could ever imagine.

So, go ahead and ban me. But if you do, I’ll wear it as a badge of honor.

[WhyNot]

Sorry , kinda hard to follow so I have to ask...

who shot who 1st ? And who is the Cowboys and who is's are the Indians? I DO see the suction cup arrows strewn around and DO smell the putrid stench of gunpowder, capguns having been fired....not taking sides ...



BRIAN D SAVE US!! LoL. Any updates form your bar owner friends decision???

[JustaShooter]

So, go ahead and ban me.

So be it. You should have been banned (again) when it became clear you were a duplicate account of a previously banned member.